So LGBT is a personal life style choice — so what?

I didn't get much sleep last night but if studies found that 80% (arbitrary number) of divorcees ate margarine while only 2% of the general population ate margarine that there is in fact a statistical relationship? This is different than just finding trends that correlate.

 

lying about what the quotes are is.

please stop.

 

And may quite possibly be gay himself. He always seemed to me to be an effeminate man trying hard to appear as a badass. And failing miserably. Grab her by the pv#ssy, yeah right. You aren't fooling anyone with your pursed lips Donald.

 

The quotes are from the "Opinion of the Court" and I haven't represented them as anything else.

 

I think your example would need to have more elements as the question is whether correlation demonstrates causation.

Look at the examples in the site I posted.

 

You represented them as the courts argument and ruling. They are neither.

 

I think that The Donald would do a better job of trying to protect LGBT people in the Middle East than
President Obama and Hillary have done.

Read more at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/d/donald_trump_6.html

 

It is the courts argument. That's what one finds in the "Opinion of the Court". AND you've not presented ANYTHING from the decision to show otherwise, because you cant.

 

No it isn't.

 

Of course it is. But you feel free to copy and paste an alternative argument from the case to support your ridiculous claims.

 

Nope
....

 

Federal benefits aren't required for a union to be a marriage.

 

Nor can they be denied based on gender

 

Not related to my arguement.

 

Ok. But they still can't.

 

...which still wasn't responsive to the points I made in the post you responded to by saying "Federal benefits aren't required for a union to be a marriage."

In other words, why should anyone bother trying to have a discussion with you if you don't address what we say, and just throw out one-liners that are non-responsive?

The answer is, you're wasting our time.

 

Here is what the opinion of the court said about sexual orientation.

And here are the only TWO references to gender in the entire opinion of the court

No Rahl, it WASN'T a gender discrimination case it was a sexual orientation discrimination case. IT HAD TO BE to reach the conclusion they desired. Because marriage discrimination based upon gender is perfectly constitutional because only women give birth and only men cause them to do so.

It was discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation that was deemed to be unconstitutional NOT gender.

 

nope. the court had to apply strict scrutiny and found that marriage discrimination based on gender to be unconstitutional per the 5th and 14th amendments. You keep citing the dicta of the case referring to gays and lesbians. this portion of the opinion is simply showing the history of the issue before the court.

You of course know all of this.

please stop lying about what the court ruled.

 

I don't think you understand the term and even dicta trumps the silly thoughts bouncing around in your head.
AND you labeling my posts "lying" is meaningless. You are pretty much always full of (*)(*)(*)(*). Making in substantiated pronouncements regarding matters you know nothing about.

 

First, there was the claim that the laws explicitly restricting marriage according to the sex of the parties weren't an attempt to target homosexual and lesbian relationships. Politically correct messaging, calling it "protecting traditional marriage" was used to sell those laws. (Um, protecting it from what? Oh, right - those nasty queer people wanting to get married - just don't tell anyone that's why - stick to the politically correct messaging.)

You might well ask, 'Why not just pass a law explicitly preventing homosexuals and lesbians from marrying'? Because of Romer v. Evans. Colorado had passed a law in 1992 to prevent "homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships" from being used as a basis for claiming discrimination. It was eventually slapped down by the Court (1996), on the basis that it violated the equal protection clause.

Applying sex/gender as the basis for restricting marriage was used as cover for cleverly taking a swipe at the people most likely to seek a same-sex marriage (gay men, lesbians), while pretending it wasn't about that.

So, what to do then when it's pointed out that the Obergefell case was based on an examination of those same sex/gender-based laws?

Well, of course - just pretend it was all about special privileges for 'gays'! Pretend that the Court's failure to fall for this ruse of 'protecting traditional marriage', and that its examination of the laws' restrictions by sex/gender, its consideration of who was affected, who sued, and who its real targets were (people whose orientation made them the ones most likely to be affected by sex/gender-based restrictions) --- just pretend that this magically means that they didn't decide the case based on the liberty protections of the Fifth Amendment, the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, or the strict scrutiny required when a law targets a right (marriage).

Nope. Just pretend it wasn't decided on the basis of what the law used to disqualify people - their sex/gender.

Pathetic, ridiculous, and this kind of smoke and mirrors shouldn't be fooling anyone anymore, except those who wish to fool themselves. Those who like to ignore the inconsistency when it's pointed out, to pretend "that's not what I said", to engage in repetition, etc. - as if repeating the lies over and over again will somehow be persuasive.

Shut up and sit down already. You lost. Continuing to squawk out the same failed arguments like some demented parrot isn't going to change things back. Gay people are getting married.

End.of.story.

 

Do you even know what dicta means?

 

Yes I do. And the quotes from pages 7-26 that I provided from the "Opinion of the Court" are not dicta. They are the very foundation of Kennedys opinion.

 

The limitation to men and women, dating from the dawn of civilization, preceded the invention of homosexuality. Would be like arguing the limitation to one spouse is intended to target Mormons. Absurd.

ACTUALLY, Romer etc weren't about "sex/gender-based laws" and were instead about sexual orientation

 

of course they are dicta.

 

We're talking here about actual laws that explicitly defined marriage as one man/one woman for the purpose of disenfranchising same-sex couples. Not the stuff you'd rather we focus on in your effort to distract and deflect from that. We've had this conversation before. Those laws didn't exist prior to the 1970s; most were adopted in the subsequent decades, and in the 2000s there were also a host of state amendments passed for that same purpose.


So you can bag the BS about those laws not doing exactly what they were intended to do - keep same-sex couples from legally marrying their mutually consenting spouses.

Witness the lie. (and dishonest snippage). The more you snip, the more I'm going to point out what you're trying to avoid. You're doing exactly what I said, below: